Merscorp

MEMORANDUM

Appellant Lady Barone challenges the district court’s dismissal of her claims. We review dismissal for failure to state a claim de novo, Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir.2012), and reverse in part and affirm in part.

Appellant’s claims were dismissed, in the first instance, because they were premised on the erroneous legal theory that assignments of the deed within the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (“MERS”) were invalid under Arizona law because the note was “split” from the deed. That theory was rejected by our holding that, under Arizona law, “the split only renders the mortgage unenforceable if MERS or the trustee, as nominal holders of the deeds, are not agents of the lenders.” Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, 656 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir.2011). Seizing on this language, Barone maintains she has alleged the trustee was not an authorized agent of the lender. The district court correctly declined to accept that legal conclusion, which is unsupported by alleged facts, and contradicted by the clear language on the face of the deed itself (which was attached to Barone’s pleading). Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6); Papasan v. Attain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 ,…